From the archive - week of 27 March

25 years ago

A planning application in south London was set to act as a litmus test for local authorities seeking to use new planning powers to guarantee affordable housing delivery.

Greenwich Council had twice rejected the application from private house builder Fairview New Homes on the grounds that three-quarters of families in the borough could not afford to buy the 163 homes planned.

The developer had planned to include 90 one-bedroom, 43 two-bedroom, 28 three-bedroom and two four-bedroom homes in the scheme, all for private sale.

Under planning regulations at the time, councils could negotiate with developers over affordable housing but could not impose quotas. Greenwich Council had stated that between 25% and 50% of new housing in the borough should be affordable.

In what was seen as a potential landmark decision, the Department of the Environment was set to rule on the application before the end of April.

15 years ago

One of the country’s largest local authorities was accused of dishonesty over information given to tenants about the terms of a potential stock transfer.

Public sector union Unison made the accusation about Birmingham Council in the run-up to a ballot that would decide the future of its 88,000 homes.

The union sent a report outlining its claims to Stephen Byers, secretary of state at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

It alleged that Birmingham had failed to state objectively what tenants were set to lose under stock transfer. It further claimed that service charges paid by tenants would jump to £9.50 a week.

These findings were based on a leaked copy of the council’s business plan, which was said to show that service charges for tenants in high-rise blocks would have to increase in order to inflate the value of its housing stock.

With the stock transfer ballot a week old at the time, Fiona Westwood, regional officer at Unison, said the council was “selling the transfer” on the doorstep, but omitting unfavourable or conflicting information to tenants.

“The basic message has been that the council cannot give tenants what they want,” she added.

Five years ago

Local authorities that were unprepared for long-awaited planning reforms were warned that they may have to accept new developments in their areas unless Local Plans were adopted.

Following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), local government minister Bob Neill (left) said councils had “no excuse” if they had not put together Local Plans, defining the amount of development they would allow.

However, 60% of councils did not have a Local Plan in place at the time the NPPF was published, leaving them at risk of having to approve unpopular developments because of the pro-growth bias in the new framework.

The NPPF was introduced to help simplify the planning process and put decision-making into the hands of communities. Councils were given 12 months to ensure their Local Plans were in harmony with the framework’s objectives.